Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday September 28, 2011 @11:08PM
from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It was 150 years ago that John Tyndall, one of history's truly great physicists, published a scientific paper with the far-from-snappy title On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction. The BBC has an article on John Tyndall and his contributions 150 years ago to the physics behind the study of climate change."

What truly makes me sad when I see things like this, is that it ultimately makes me think that a bit of science has been lying around for 150 years - and there are still people who try to disclaim it, pretend it simply isn't true and make all manner of excuses as to why it doesn't mean what it clearly states. All to either keep making money, keep doing what they have been doing or because it is simply easier to not have to change the way things are done.

It's rare to see someone attack this particular bit of science. Ignorant people merely don't trust science, but once they gain the level of understanding to be able to comment on this part of the theory, they rarely disagree with it. They may still be 'deniers' and disagree with other parts of the catastrophe facing the human race, but not this part.

Heh, try being a meteorologist (not even a climate scientist), and those people come out of woodworks. I had one guy trying to argue against it based on (his understanding of) the laws of thermodynamics. Another trying to claim that because it couldn't accurately forecast the temperature outside his house, it must be wrong.

Sure. Did you show them the equation? Or did you mess around trying to explain something that you would never be able to convince them of? Really, choose your argument ground in a place that is easy to win.

Show them this equation [wikipedia.org]. Although it's a simplification, I've never found anyone who understands this equation who will deny the effects of CO2. It will reduce the amount of time you need to spend arguing with idiots (because they will soon no longer be idiots, or because you can ignore them immediately if they don't spend the time to understand it).

Of corse it reflects at some wavelengths - but it also strongly absorbs at others (namely the in the band of reflected IR that comes back from the earth's surface).

A large portion of the sun's energy is reflected back into space by the gasses and vapour in the atmosphere (the albedo effect of clouds can sometimes be as high as 0.7 to 0.8), but while the simultaneously reflect a lot of solar radiation away before it reaches the ground, they also absorb a great deal of the IR is is radiated away from the surf

Guess what water vapor does in sufficient quantity? Reflect radiation (not absorb it), called Anisotropic solar reflectance. But that is hardly ever mentioned, because it doesn't happen in smaller scale greenhouse tests.

Yeah, exactly. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that that only happens when water vapor stops being water vapor.

You mean clouds?, the effect you're referring to is highly dependent on the size of the water droplets [wikipedia.org]. So high levels of water vapour do not necessarily entail high levels of solar reflectance but it does directly entail a positive feedback effect on global temperatures [realclimate.org]. If you've got references to back-up your assertions, by all means, provide them. But I suspect that anyone using the phrase "Global Warming Alarmists" whilst arguing a point related to climate science has little actual interest in the Scie

All water both reflects and absorbs radiation. What is particularly, spectacularly interesting about water's absorption spectrum is that it soaks up UV more effectively than any other frequency of light. When it absorbs UV it radiates IR, as you might expect. Now, solid water is quite good at reflecting radiation including UV, which is why the melting of ice on land is so critical, since the land is very very good at absorbing it. So yes, sometimes water does reflect radiation...

The problem for Global Warming Alarmists is that there is no way to test for such a thing.

Yes, those are denier canards. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm [skepticalscience.com] The second one is so nonsensical it doesn't even require a serious response. Imagine what the planet would be like without the little bit of CO2 we have in the atmosphere.

The analogous warmist canards would probably be, CO2 is air pollution, it's a terrible thing, and it's such a powerful gas that it will completely kill off all the polar bears, drown Florida and the Maldives, and make the world a permanently hot and sweaty place:)

The difference would be that these are caricatures of the science whereas denialists really say that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life, so repeating that canard is not a strawman.

The really sad thing is that there are probably many things deniers and warmists agree on, but we always end up skipping to the part where if I drive my car I'm going to kill the world with melting glaciers, and if you tell me not to drive my car you're a communist hippie bent on world domination.

You seem to be suggesting that there is a need to arrive at a mutually acceptable understanding - that if the objective facts and measures are not acceptable, some reality between the fantasy world of denial and the objective facts and probabilities defined by observation should be a common meeting point. That is, of

Less sarcastically... Irrelevant to what a persons opinion is on global warming, the fact that a paper was written 150 years ago does not mean people have their heads in the sand. There were a lot of ridiculous papers written 150 years ago. It would be foolhardy for us to assume that because they are old, that they are true.

But wait, we haven't seen a doubling of CO2 in the past 100 years...or even the past 1000 years, and we certainly haven't seen 4-5C of warming that would go with it.

So while you might be able to create an equation that matches our current data, and which also asserts that we'll see a 4-5C warming for a doubling of CO2, that's an extrapolation of assumptions - we haven't actually *observed* that.

FWIW, CO2 from say, 1000AD to today has gone from 280ppm to around 390ppm (about a 39% increase, as opposed to a d

The reason (I believe) is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. The other ones have a dampening effect. So you need to take into consideration the entire composition of the atmosphere, not just CO2. There was a study several year back that did exactly that. So don't worry, scientists are on top of this; or at least, are aware of the problems you describe and are actively trying to solve them.

Okay, so we've got a theoretical "4-5C warming if we double CO2 and everything else stays *exactly the same*". I might even buy that.

A world where any significant portion of it stays *exactly the same*? That's fantasy:)

The real question is this - we could have started with the theory "0.04-0.05C warming if we double CO2 and everything else stays *exactly the same*", and made the same excuses we're making today for the warming prediction 100 times higher. How could we discern between those two hypotheses

Okay, so we've got a theoretical "4-5C warming if we double CO2 and everything else stays *exactly the same*". I might even buy that.

A world where any significant portion of it stays *exactly the same*? That's fantasy:)

The real question is this - we could have started with the theory "0.04-0.05C warming if we double CO2 and everything else stays *exactly the same*", and made the same excuses we're making today for the warming prediction 100 times higher. How could we discern between those two hypotheses? What observations would exclude one or the other from being true?

IOW: since not all other things can be the same, everything will be okay. PERIOD.

and then fudge factor everything else until it comes to some close match

That's not how GCMs work. Almost everything in the model has a physical basis that cannot be tuned. Of course, the physical models depend on our understanding of the physics, which may change as a result of experiments and observations, but the scientists do not have the opportunity to simple twiddle some parameters to make the model fit, as you seem to think.

We are still a long way from being able to simulate the climate with a true first principles calculation. While many basic aspects of physics can be included (conservation of mass, energy etc.), many need to be approximated for reasons of efficiency or resolutions (i.e. the equations of motion need estimates of sub-gridscale turbulent effects, radiative transfer codes approximate the line-by-line calculations using band averaging), and still others are only known empirically (the formula fo

The reason (I believe) is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. The other ones have a dampening effect.

Well, hydrogen and oxygen can have a dampening effect, in that if you put them together they make water, and that makes stuff wet. The only thing the other gases could do would be to have a damping effect, but they don't. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas we are emitting.

In particular, one where CO2 leads, rather than lags temperature change

You first need to understand that CO2 both leads and lags temperature change, with different delays. Higher temperatures can lead to higher CO2, and higher CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. Right now, it is clear that CO2 is leading.

What observations will show us that 3C is too much?

If you can properly explain the glacial cycles without assuming 3C effect on doubling CO2,, for instance. Go ahead, you'd be famous.

Of course human activity is not the "SOLE" cause of global warming. But the science (based on the work of John Tyndall) says the increase in greenhouse gases (GHG's) in the atmosphere is the cause of most of the climate change that is occurring now and that humans are the source of most of that increase in GHG's. If we quit adding GHG's to the atmosphere it won't solve global warming, it will simply put a limit on how bad it gets. We put our entire civilization in jeopardy if global warming gets bad enou

We have build our civilisation on the assumption that the climate is a certain way. We have agriculture where the climate favours it, we have harbours and cities near the sea shore for easy access, we have road that have just enough foundation that they want get rained away, we have sewers which is just big enough that they can take the normal amount of rain. If the climate changes, we will need to change the infrastructure of our civilisation, which is going to be very costly, no matter which way it needs

Climate always changes. We build our civilization wherever we *can* build it, and when we can no longer build it that way, we change. The fall of the Maya, the Greenland Vikings, or any number of civilizations that had to dramatically change are a testament to the continuously changing climate of the world.

The speculation is whether or not warming is going to be any more, or less costly than the climate changes that have always happened, and whether or not any of our proposed interventions can do *anythin

Climate always changes. We build our civilization wherever we *can* build it, and when we can no longer build it that way, we change. The fall of the Maya, the Greenland Vikings, or any number of civilizations that had to dramatically change are a testament to the continuously changing climate of the world.

Are you serious? Even if we neglect the impact to other species that climate change imparts, the impact to humans will be disastrous. Take only one aspect: sea level rise. A good majority of the world's population lives on a coastline where 20ft increase of sea level would dramatically change the world's population.

Second it's one thing that climate change has happened in the past; it's another that we are the cause. Many rivers contain some arsenic due to natural runoff; that doesn't mean we should dum

The fact that when he "put the graph at the same scale as Hansen’s predictions", the measured temps of the past don't even remotely match up shows he's full of it. And if you fell for it, you are even dumber than I thought.

What truly makes me sad when I see things like this, is that it ultimately makes me think that a bit of science has been lying around for 150 years

No, it hasn't. The number of people who claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas is a tiny group of crackpots. The debate is over whether the earth is really warming (because many of our climate stations are returning bogus data), followed by whether man's activity is the cause. However, since humankind is full of blowhards, incompetents, and narcis

I think the same way about evolution. I had someone tell me that there was no evidence for evolution. So, I looked it up, and Origin of Species was published two years before the civil war. We are literally arguing about civil war era science, and the majority of my home state is trying to keep their understanding of biology stuck at that point in time.

Damned Yankees, never did know what to do on a nice warm day. Its called sweet tea, and when added with a shade tree or even better an innertube and a creek is a damned fine way to enjoy a nice sunny day son!

Just dig you a pit, have you some hobo BBQ, fire up a fatty or crack a cold one (whichever floats your boat) and you and your sweetie just float the day away. Dang Yankees just don't know what's good, that's what it is.

What makes me sad is that one can ignore that some of the same people who are howling about global warming today were howling about a man-made ice age in the seventies, and expect the rest of us to blindly follow along. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that global warming was predicted 150 years ago, when a mere 40 years ago the alarmists were predicting the opposite.

And here we see the degeneration of a meme in action. Pseudo-intellectual denialism (with spurious references to "global cooling" included) is one thing, but when you see bullshit-spouting denialists who can't even keep the bullshit they're supposed to be spouting straight, it's just pathetic. It's kind of like the way there are apparently large numbers of people who truly, honest to God believe that 50% of Americans pay no taxes. I honestly have to wonder: are you so stupid that you can't remember your

The basic science of global warming isn't too tough or very modern(clearly), although most people don't understand it very well. This article seems to make things fairly confusing as well, although the quote from Tyndall himself is pleasantly concise and clear: "heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat." My favorite explanation, I think, is how Carl Sagan explained it in Cosmos, which is roughly as follows:
The idea is that visible light hits the earth, and warms it up. Some of that light is reflected straight back, so it leaves the atmosphere the way it came in and we're done. A lot of that light, though, gets absorbed by trees or rocks or walruses, causing them to heat up. They'll slowly re-radiate it out again because of blackbody radiation (all things radiate continually, even the universe itself) but it will be in the form of lower energy, lower frequency wavelengths. This means that energy from visible light gets absorbed and often radiated back out again as infrared.

CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases let light in the visible part of the spectrum pass unimpeded, but they don't let IR through as easily. So, energy comes in but it can't get back out again.

Calculating global warming in terms of black body radiation isn't easy. You never hear any scientist say, "x% of the earth's heat comes from the sun, y% from the atmosphere, z% is radiated back from the reflectiveness of the earth....."

You will never hear any scientist say that because we don't know. We can only estimate what the earth's temperature would be without an atmosphere to an accuracy of +-10 degrees, which isn't near good enough for global warming purposes. So instead, we focus on the change in

They fit all those things into their models, but not in terms of calculating total value of each. They try to estimate how each one will change, and if they can calculate the change accurately enough, they don't need to know the total. That is the theory, anyway.

CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases let light in the visible part of the spectrum pass unimpeded, but they don't let IR through as easily. So, energy comes in but it can't get back out again.

That's more or less true, although one of the big arguments in the first half of the 20th century was that water vapour in the atmosphere completely masks the IR absorption spectra of CO2, and thus it doesn't matter how much CO2 you have in the atmosphere. It took until the 50s for scientists to realise that while this is fairly accurate (although not entirely) at sea level, it's most certainly not true in the upper atmosphere where (a) there's not much water vapour and (b) the absorption spectra don't ove

Svante Arrhenius "was the first to calculate on the heating of the Earth in 1903. But, he refers to Fourier, Pouillet and Tyndall as predecessors. He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.

Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 C.[5] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 C. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now estimated in most scenarios to take about a century."

Some quotes:

"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat." (p46)

"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses." (p51)

"If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8." (p53)

"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries." (p54)

"Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." (p61)

"We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration

Ironic that in the preceding century we seem to have lost the appreciation that climate changes in cycles, and that the results can be both negative and positive but in a basic sense - like every other living creature - we're stuck with simply coping or dying.

Earth, regardless, will continue to spin merrily along whether we infest its skin or not. 99%+ of all species that have ever existed are extinct, so clearly that doesn't have squat for an impact.

Ironic that in the preceding century we seem to have lost the appreciation that climate changes in cycles, and that the results can be both negative and positive but in a basic sense - like every other living creature - we're stuck with simply coping or dying.

No, that would be unfortunate. What's ironic is that what you take away from this is that the environment is cyclical, while what I take away from this is that man has an influence on his environment. You believe we are powerless. I believe we are powerful. You believe the party line that the defilers of this planet who are changing it daily want us to believe. Guess what that leaves?

As a non-teabagger, I think this is totally unfair and stupid, and spineless. Rick Perry might have blind-spots, but name one person on this world who doesn't. He deserves some respect for his stand on racism, and also for speaking his mind on social security, even if you don't agree with him. There is some authenticity and guts there that the AC just doesn't have, and doesn't get.

The typical climate denier is like the 9/11 conspiracy theorist -- a mind that is never still, prone to hyperbole, and always

and also for speaking his mind on social security, even if you don't agree with him.

So now all it takes to get respect is to have an opinion, however stupid?

Well, it is my opinion that is ridiculous.

I believe what he was criticized for was calling social security a ponzi scheme. Other than the fact that all the "investors" are compelled into participating, I fail to see how SS is not like a ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is named after Charles A. Ponzi, an Italian-American swindler, and is defined by Webster's Collegiate Dictionary thusly: "an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones."

By that definition, every insurance policy, every bank savings account, every publicly traded business in fact, is a "ponzi scheme".

Capitalism, in fact is a ponzi scheme too, by that definition.

The main part that's missing from your definition is that the investors don't know

Oh yes, and all those scientists are suffering from the confirmation bias [wikipedia.org], but the *real* scientists (who are out-numbered by intelligent designers) know the truth. Namely: that there can never be such a thing as an environmental issue, because we already know that people who think of these things are just crazy.

Yup, I've seen that canard around too - the warmist analog is that we have a consensus, and the science is settled, and that the time for action is now:)

This is exactly why I enjoyed our conversation about getting to a falsifiable hypothesis statement so much -> when we skip that part, both sides pretty much spend their time building straw men to burn, rather than trying to understand where the disconnect in communication is:)

Another favorite canard of both warmist and denier is "it's not [warming/cool

the same ones that cooked up credit default swaps, aka economy killers are writing the rules for the carbon derivatives market

So, just to verify -- You do understand that credit default swaps "killed the economy" by allowing the system to take on more risk than was prudent, and then transferring that risk to future taxpayers via government bailouts.

So, are you concerned that carbon markets might suffer the same fate, by being too lax and allowing carbon producers to take on too much risk of climate change at the expense of the future generations who will have to pay for it?

Actually, credit default swaps were a way for investment banks to reduce risk. Being an entirely unregulated instrument, some people decided they could buy them up even without holding the securities they were protecting. It became like a giant, unregulated way to short stocks, but it could be done so that short bets were many times greater than the value of an entire company. They're not really comparable to carbon credit markets, other than another way for the usual suspects to make money without creati

using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate

This would be much more convincing if the rest of your post weren't exactly the kind of ignorant, paranoid rant that causes people to be labeled deniers in the first place.

I thought his post was very insightful, and pointed out a lot of the issues around why people are skeptical that there's any AGW issue at all. But of course here on/., a one-sentence name-calling bash with no basis can get modded up as "Insightful", while a well thought-out, rational discussion of an issue with reference can get modded as "Flamebait", just because of the topic.

I'd expect now to get this modded "off-topic" since I've diverted into a discussion of post moderation, but the moderation system

There wasn't any scientific content at all. It was all about economics and politics.

Here's a tip for those who have issues with 'climate change'... don't conflate the scientific debate (which is generally about understanding the problem) with the political debate (which is generally around what to do about it).

Whether or not the science is valid has nothing at all to do with what Al Gore says or does, carbon credits, taxes etc etc. Railing against the science purely

Well first of all I think using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate.

I agree, but that's the sort of thing that happens when it's long past the time that "healthy debate" should have ended. Suppose every test indicates you've got cancer, and every doctor you've seen says you've got cancer. Locking into the position that you don't have cancer is not "healthy debate". It's very unhealthy debate, especially when the tumor is visible on your skin.

Now here is what I personally have against the whole climate change, which make up your damned mind is it global warming or global cooling?

Beside the point, and entirely untrue. It's beside the point because you're using your displeasure for the solution as evidence the problem doesn't exists. Carbon credits were chosen by politicians as the only solution that would satisfy conservatives. Many other solutions were offered. They were all rejected because they weren't "market based". Frankly, a revenue neutral carbon tax is a better solution, but conservatives wouldn't go for it because it has the word "tax" in it. But, even if the solution was free donuts, I'm guessing you would oppose it.

What a fucking loser. And you guys worship this clown.. such sad little people.

"Al Gore, the super-rich conniving businessman, selling a lie to make an even hugerest stack-a-cash! I heard he bought a beach-front house! He doesn't even believe in global warming! Oh that villain! Listen to me! I know what I'm talking about!!!!"

Yeah... that's what I think when people like you start talking about Al Gore.

Just who worships Al Gore? This must be some obscure subculture or something because I don't really know anyone who thinks very highly of Gore (they may not dislike him, they may even have some basic respect for things he's done but they don't put him on a pedestal).

Or maybe it's like the Michael Moore thing, where lots of right-wing idiots (and trolls) thought everyone left of Mussolini worshiped Moore even though the reality of it was that we were slightly impressed by his documentaries but still had some issues with the movies as well as with Moore himself.

I'm assuming it's a sort of projectionism. Many on the far right lionize Ronald Reagan and Bill O'Reilly to such a degree that they assume that the left must have golden calves of their own that they absolutely worship.

"Look your Honour, we know he is a bad man, he sent these angry emails to his friends."

There as been numerous independent inquiries into this matter, and Phil Jones has been cleared in all cases. Guess *everybody* is in on the conspiracy, and only Steve McIntyre knows the "truth"

I wonder how easy it would be to assassinate your character by trolling through your emails. All we have to do is snip a sentence here and there, and then impugn your motives, and then the angry mob will take care of the rest.

Starvation is just going to get worse if current trends continue. One of the real problems with climate change is that if things do heat up or winds do change their patterns, there's the potential for many people to be starving, many of whom aren't presently starving.

As for the size of the problem, it's not that big, the solutions are largely there, it's just that there isn't the political will to do it in places like the US and China. The technology to deal with it has largely been developed, it's just ver

Starvation is just going to get worse if current trends continue. One of the real problems with climate change is that if things do heat up or winds do change their patterns, there's the potential for many people to be starving, many of whom aren't presently starving.

This is insane, you cannot rationally be proposing that argument. Historical records have had the average temperature warmer than now, and the result was an INCREASE in arable land across the globe and growth of civilization as a result. War

Climate has always changed, and we've always had to adapt in order to avoid starvation. To think that if we were to make energy so expensive that developing nations couldn't even afford to cook their food, that somehow we'll stop climate from ever changing again is kind of silly.

Until technology arrives that can beat natural petroleum products on affordability per kWh, moving to these more advanced technologies is a surefire recipe for increased world poverty. The rest of the world knows that.

It's already cheaper to drive your car on electricity. I've heard it said a gallon of gas equivalent amount of electricity us under $2. Now we just need better battery technology which is coming. Some coal plant proposals were recently abandoned when it became apparent that solar PV power will likely be cheaper than coal around 2020.

Okay, so here's the problem - "cheaper than coal" can mean either we've made coal more expensive, or that solar has become cheaper in absolute terms. While I'll agree the first is possible, the second is highly unlikely.

PV cells have been decreasing in cost at the rate of 22% per doubling of production capacity for three decades now. There are good reasons to think that this trend will continue. Since PV now provides less than 0.03% of global energy, there's plenty of room for ten more doublings. That gets us down to under ten percent of current PV costs.